|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Activities
Nor'easter News
Car Care
Membership
Other Cool Stuff
Sponsors & Advertisers
|
Porsche
Club of America
Upshifting
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cell
phones and driving, isn't that analogous to mixing oil and water, or James
Carville marrying Mary Maitlin, or a "save the Spotted Owl" advocate actual
listening to a logger? Well, you get the point, and I'm here to argue that
cell phones and driving are compatible, and if you won't buy that, at least
the combination is no worse - and far better - than many other factors
when combined with driving.
I must qualify my stance right up front and that is to say, as with everything in life, the use of a cell phone while driving must be done with common sense and in moderation. There are those calls, which are sufficiently superficial (like the alliteration there?) that a negligible amount of one's attention is taken from the road. Conversely, there are calls that take enough concentration that I'll pull to the side of the road if that can be done safely, and if not, will at a minimum, pull into the slowest right hand lane until the call is finished. And ultimately, if necessary, will call the person back. I guess what has gotten the hair up on my back is not only the movement to outlaw the use of cell phones while driving (very, very difficult to enforce) but also in particular the attempt (some jurisdictions have succeeded i.e. all of NY state) to require the use of a "hands-free" device when using a cell phone. Now what the hell is the difference between holding a cell phone to your ear while driving, or holding a cup of coffee, or reading the mail you picked up when exiting the driveway or the morning newspaper, or the driver with a miniature poodle on their lap looking out the window, or a woman putting on her morning make-up, or a man using his electric razor. If you think those are bad situations, what about the parent turning around 180° to chat with, or yell at some kids in their car seats in the back seat while driving on Rte. 128? And we've all seen these occurrences too frequently. One could say that they're all bad and all should be made illegal...and they probably already are, but they're not enforced and from a practical point probably are not enforceable. So we get down to common sense, and I'll be the first to say, there are far too few of us in America with sufficient common sense or street smarts. Our government and legal system has bred it out of us for decades. No one will take responsibility for their actions any more. While the nightclub fire in West Warwick was a tragic event of monumental proportions and we all feel that that it could have easily been us (if you're not a rocker it could have happened in a ball room), there sure may be some culpability of the band or club owners, still to be determined by the courts. But, No Way will I ever accept that the radio station that ran the club's ads, or Budweiser who promoted their product with the event, have any responsibility for the horrible deaths of those 99 people. But friends, they have deep pockets and the sharks are going after them. Or the family that sued the manufacturer of a back yard swing when their daughter was seriously injured as a result of the parents' faulty installation. The parents had bought the set at a yard sale, installed it themselves, and their attorneys were arguing that the original manufacturer should have placed assembly instructions and warning signs on the equipment in such a way that they could not be removed and would last through several owners and yard sales...utterly ridiculous. Accept responsibility for your actions. I'm sorry; let me get off my soapbox. David Strayer, a University of Utah psychology professor led a study that showed there is no difference between using a hands-free device or a hand-held cell phone. "You were impaired in both cases," he said. Strayer had used a driving simulator and writing in the March issue of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied reported that the use of cell phones (sans hands-free device) "clearly distracted the drivers". An even more disturbing aspect of his research showed that the volunteers did not realize they were driving badly. "It is like studies that show 90% of people think they are better-than-average drivers," he added. "Forty percent of them are wrong". A 1997 NE Journal of Medicine report preceding Strayer's found that "talking on a phone while driving quadrupled the risk of accident". Contrary to the NETM report, The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis reported in December 2002 that drivers talking on the phone are responsible for about 6% of US auto accidents. Through observation I'd venture to say that close to 1 out of 17 (6%) of Boston area drivers are using a cell phone at any given time so that figure would have nothing to do with the use of a cell phone, strictly statistical probability. The HCRA went on to say that the cost of the accidents attributed to the phones was offset by the value people placed on making calls from the road. Trying to determine why the results were so one-sided Strayer set up another experiment using an "eye tracker" to note very precisely where someone is looking. He found that while drivers may have looked at a billboard, they had no memory of having seen it. "There is a kind of tunnel vision - you aren't processing the peripheral information as well". What I find the most interesting is that further tests showed that this type of inattention did not occur when drivers were listening to music, audio books, or talking with a passenger. This "problem" has naturally spilled over to the corporate and employer-employee world were employers are now being sued for accidents occurring when their employees were using a cell phone when involved in an accident. A $30 million lawsuit was file against a VA law firm when an associate killed a 15-year-old girl while on a business call. It'll be interesting to see the results of that case. While my personal views are that the law firm had no culpability, our American jurisprudence history surely comes down on the plaintiff's side here. However, then we have a situation where Salomon Smith Barney paid $500,000 to the family of a motorcyclist who was killed when an employee ran a red light while on a cell phone. The employee was on their own time and making a personal call. Dear readers, again we get back to 'deep pockets', and not what may be fair or right. Some MA companies have taken steps aimed at reducing their exposure to such accidents. Getronics has prohibited the use of cell phones in any of their 400 company vehicles and employees must sign an acknowledgement of this policy. Verizon (interesting as they are the largest wireless provider in the US) now prohibits the use of cell phones while on company business and limits the use of hands-free devices to only absolutely necessary calls. This trend is basically to distance the employer from the employee's negligence. On the other hand a partner at a prominent law firm who asked not to be identified (according to The Boston Globe) said, "I raised the issue of banning cell phone use for business calls while driving, and my executive committee laughed out loud". So where are we? As in most of life, use common sense and good judgment, be aware of the potential consequences of your actions, and come down on the side of caution and conservative actions. Truths About Life: Learned By Little Children
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright
1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 PCA/NER
Year 2000 Web Site Design by www.sitesofboston.com |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
